June saw fur very much on the agenda in the UK, where the government was obliged to debate a proposal to ban all fur imports on leaving the EU next year, after receiving a petition with 425,000 signatures. The opposition Labour Party vowed to pass such a ban if given the chance, while its members vied for the headlines with celebrities like Brian May, Judi Dench, Ricky Gervais and Andy Murray. One Labour MP even likened wearing fur to wearing a swastika.

But while anti-fur tirades dominated column inches and air time, the media didn't just roll over. The BBC took a sympathetic look at mink farming in Denmark, and raised the issue now on everyone's mind of our excessive use of plastic, including fake fur. Even the tabloids are condemning fake fur, with the Daily Mail stating, "'Animal-friendly' fashion alternatives could do more harm to the environment than fur and leather-based clothing." (In fairness, though, the Mail is happy to bash anything, including real fur.)

As anticipated, the Conservative government said it has no plans to ban fur imports, but the future is far from secure if Labour wins the next general election, scheduled for 2022.

Food Fascism

In other European news, vegan terrorists are now picking on family butchers. We reported in May how a butcher in England had its windows daubed with paint and got death threats all the way from Australia. Now French butchers are so sick of vegans that they're demanding government protection. Targeting butchers is not just a European thing, though, as this Berkeley, California butcher found out last year.

And on the subject of food fascism, a food lawyer (yes, such a job exists!) says we should follow California's foie gras ban closely. The Supreme Court, no less, has been asked to hear an appeal from producers about a circuit court ruling reinstating the ban. "This is a court case about much more than foie gras," Baylen Linnekin told the Orange County Register. "It concerns the future of beef, poultry, pork, and other foods eaten by nearly every American."

Tough Questions

When animal users are not countering ignorant and often untruthful attacks from animal rightists, we're searching for answers to tough questions. When it comes to knowing your opponent, here's a thought-provoking piece in The New Republic entitled "The truth about the 'vegan lobby'."  "It has long been demonized by conservatives – and even some vegans themselves – but does it really exist?" asks Emily Atkin.

Truth About Fur's senior researcher Alan Herscovici examined "The truth about 'fur free' designer brands". Have they really developed a dislike for fur, or are there other forces at work?

Also on our blog, conservationist and environmental social scientist Paul McCarney asked the tough question of whether anthropomorphism is good or bad for conservation. And on a related note, Roy Graber at WATTAgNet says farmers et al. should "Stop saying animals are our friends." "Often when the food and agriculture industry depicts overly happy visions of livestock and poultry, it reinforces unrealistic expectations," he writes.

Meanwhile, it's easy for animal users who produce food and clothing to forget that medical researchers have been under attack for decades and the problem shows no signs of abating. The Daily Bruin published a series of responses by researchers to activists, defending the use of animals in studies. Said one, "It is difficult to have a conversation with people who believe that human and animal lives should be weighed equally."

If you ever have to argue why we don't need to treat animals quite as well as humans and you're not sure what to say, Juan Carlos Marvizon, Ph.D. provides this scientific explanation in Speaking of Research.

Trapping News

Ontarians have been hogging the trapping headlines of late, in a nice way.

On Truth About Fur's blog, Ontario trapper Jim Gibb described how to stay busy with wild fur prices so depressed, in "Skunk under your deck? Call a certified trapper".

"Irrepressible" Ontario trapper and designer Katie Ball was interviewed by the International Fur Federation. She's a busy beaver with a résumé that includes the Northwestern Fur Trappers Association, the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, and the Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen's Alliance. On top of all that, she runs a fur design and manufacturing business, Silver Cedar Studio.

And if you want to trap in Ontario but come from out-of-state – or in this case a whole different country – be sure to follow local regulations. These Minnesota trappers were fined $6,000 for trapping violations in Ontario.

In other trapping news, the Northwest Territories are having trouble with too many beavers, so the government has raised the bounty from $50 last year to $100. The offer ended June 10, so plan for 2019. This is called a marketing incentive, not a cull, and trappers must show evidence that the meat or pelt are being used.

Payback

It's unfortunate, of course, that so many animal activists now behave so badly, but the "good" news is that law enforcement and society at large are not giving them a free ride.

In Utah, activists have been charged by the FBI for stealing piglets from a farm. This activist has been charged with breaking into five Ontario mink farms. And in Australia, these ones have been charged with animal cruelty for allegedly injuring and killing several hens after a break-in.

In Florida, an angry sheriff brought attention to the old problem of activists releasing undercover videos of alleged animal cruelty to the media rather than to law enforcement, in this case enabling the perpetrators to flee the state. As always we ask ourselves, do they really want to protect animals or simply grab media attention?

Last but not least, it's tempting to laugh at the fate of these Direct Action Everywhere protesters who crashed a BBQ challenge in San Francisco, only to be booed, heckled and taunted with meat by the participants. What did they expect? And if you think that's nuts, check out the video of the lady protesting "cruel" conditions on chicken farms by lying in a pile of poop – in California, of course!

We often assume that if we convince people to care about wildlife they will support conservation. Of course, people are unlikely to support something they don't feel personally attached to. Unfortunately, simply caring about wildlife does not always lead to positive conservation behaviour or support for policies. So the task is not only to make people care about wildlife but to do so in a way that will inspire them to take action.

Writers, poets, artists, and conservationists have attempted to make people care about wildlife by giving them emotions and characteristics that we value in ourselves, a process known as anthropomorphism. The use of anthropomorphism has created passionate debate among naturalists and conservationists and is perhaps most famously exemplified in Disney's 1942 film, Bambi. While many people have strong opinions about it, the question we really need to ask is, can anthropomorphism benefit conservation?

I recently had a conversation with a close friend about anthropomorphism. He thinks deeply about issues and I admire his ideas. I made an off-the-cuff remark about my frustrations about anthropomorphism and was surprised to hear him say that he believes it can be beneficial for conservation. The conversation was fascinating and made me think about my own assumptions about anthropomorphism and how they are informed by my relationship to wildlife as a hunter and my observations of conservation in North America.

Anthropomorphism

Most of us have probably been bombarded with anthropomorphic messaging since childhood. Anthropomorphism is applying "humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions" to animals. Sometimes we do this subconsciously; other times, it is a tool used intentionally to mobilize support for a cause. For further reference, see just about any Disney movie, ever.

Everyone respects him. For of all the deer in the forest, not one has lived half so long. He's very brave and very wise. That's why he's known as the Great Prince of the Forest.

- Bambi, 1942

Researchers have examined what motivates people to anthropomorphize animals. One of the conditions under which people tend to anthropomorphize is when they seek social connections or need to reduce loneliness. When we portray or talk about wildlife as though it has human emotions or characteristics, it can change how we treat those species. Epley et al. (2007) found that "treating agents as human versus nonhuman has a powerful impact on whether those agents are treated as moral agents worthy of respect and concern or treated merely as objects". There are a number of implicit and explicit reasons we might wish to see animals treated as moral agents.

I am interested in the impact that anthropomorphism might have on conservation. Certainly, anthropomorphism has been used in the creation stories, myths, and parables of cultures all over the world for thousands of years. Many of those cultures have maintained a close and sustainable relationship with nature. When discussing anthropomorphism and conservation, I'll note that I am referring to both of those concepts as they have been taken up and given form within a largely Western cultural context.

Bambi and the Nature Fakers

The hunting writer David Petersen talks about Bambi and the concept it represents in the popular imagination in his book Heartsblood (2003). Petersen opposes "Bambi syndrome" on both cultural and ecological bases. First and foremost, he notes, Bambi plants a seed of "ill-founded guilt" in the public's imagination. Ecologically, the story of Bambi completely distorts the reality of deer biology and wildlife management. Petersen presents a clear and concise explanation of the ecological sense in hunting young deer. (It is too in-depth to cover here, but in short, killing young deer amounts to what ecologists have called "compensatory mortality" and is a natural part of maintaining healthy deer population dynamics.)

Bambi presents a completely unrealistic view of forest ecology and interactions among wild animals. It is anthropomorphism to its most sinister and damaging extent. Walt Disney was an anti-hunter and it was a deliberate decision to exclude all wildlife predators from the film adaptation of Bambi in order to portray humans as the only enemies of wildlife. Walt Disney used anthropomorphism repeatedly over the years, realizing that this kind of deliberate manipulation of nature was a gold mine. So even if Bambi incidentally brought people to conservation, let's agree for a moment that it was not the film's primary intention. Petersen also notes that famous film critic Roger Ebert questioned the film's suitability for young audiences, saying, "I am not sure it's a good experience for children – especially young and impressionable ones".

But Bambi isn't fully to blame. I'm not sure when the debate about anthropomorphism officially began, but at least some of its roots can be traced to the "nature fakers" debate. In the early 1900s, a genre of literature referred to, quite ironically, as realistic wild animal stories emerged. A naturalist by the name of Ernest Thompson Seton was one of the central figures of the movement. Seton once described a fox that jumped onto the back of a sheep to elude hunters. The sheep "ran for several hundred yards, when Vix got off, knowing that there was now a hopeless gap in the scent". In his book Wild Ones (2013), Jon Mooallem describes it, "these stories claimed to be credible natural histories of wildlife. But they dramatized the lives of animals as though they were the anthropomorphic heroes of fiction". Jack London's White Fang (1906) is another well-known character in this genre.

As with Bambi, these stories distorted nature, sanitizing the realities of predator-prey dynamics and the general wildness of nature. And, as with Bambi, the stories and their authors garnered intense criticism. In 1903, the writer and naturalist John Burroughs published an essay in which he criticized Seton and others as "sham naturalists" and "nature fakers". In 1907, Teddy Roosevelt became involved and effectively put an end to the debate when he gave an interview in which he "sailed into William J. Long and Jack London and one or two other of the more preposterous writers of 'unnatural' history".

Burroughs's and Roosevelt's issue was not simply that they didn't enjoy the stories. Rather, the debate arose right at the time that the conservation movement was catalyzing in the United States and there was growing alarm about declining wildlife populations. Burroughs and Roosevelt were concerned about what it might mean for the wider public to develop inaccurate understandings of wildlife and nature and how this might hinder conservation efforts.

Anthropomorphism in Conservation

Some researchers suggest that anthropomorphism could be used strategically and deliberately as a conservation tool. For instance, in a paper published in the journal Biodiversity and Conservation, Alvin A.Y.-H. Chan (2012) argues that anthropomorphism can highlight similarities between humans and animals. The author points out that humans are "naturally attracted to those that are similar to us and similarities have long been known to enhance empathy between humans, and between humans and animals". If conservationists emphasize the similarities, it can enhance people's empathy and care towards animals because it is difficult to ignore the plight of "sentient likeable organisms with human characteristics".

The author of this paper is careful to point out that anthropomorphism should not create "fictional animal personas". Rather, anthropomorphism should be used to strategically highlight specific similarities between humans and animals. In particular, conservationists should focus on three areas of similarities: the intelligence of animals, their ability to experience pain, and their social behaviour. If we portray threatened animals as similar to humans and foster a sense of connection with them, the public will be more likely to find them important and therefore be more willing to protect them and their ecosystems, "even if it requires them to make sacrifices".

In another paper published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Kim-Pong Tam et al. (2013) considered the connection between anthropomorphism and behavioural changes that benefit conservation. The authors return to the need for connectedness among humans and examine whether anthropomorphism creates a feeling of social connection with animals. They point out that connectedness to nature is a strong determinant of conservation behaviour - to protect something, we need to feel connected to it. Therefore, if used effectively, "anthropomorphizing nature could be a relatively low-cost but useful strategy in environmental promotion".

Three Concerns with Anthropomorphism

While the papers discussed above outline strategic uses of anthropomorphism, Root-Bernstein et al. (2013) caution about its potential as a "powerful but double-edged sword".

First, people who support the strategic use of anthropomorphism focus on creating connections with animals and propose that this will lead to the public feeling connected to nature as a whole and willing to protect "those species and their ecosystems". Both of the papers I discussed above are focused on individual animals or, at most, individual species. They do little to demonstrate that the public will extend empathy for particular species to a wider commitment to habitat protection, which is the key factor in conservation. I'm not at all convinced that anthropomorphizing certain animals will lead to broader awareness about ecology and conservation and even if it does, increased awareness might not be enough.

Second, those studies argue that anthropomorphism can change people's attitudes towards nature. The environmental sociologist Thomas Heberlein notes that because "many conservation biologists believe attitudes are behavior, they often propose to change behavior simply by educating the public". However, research has also shown that changes in information and attitudes do not automatically lead to changes in behaviour. As Heberlein notes, this approach "usually fails because it is difficult to change attitudes and because attitudes have so little to do with behavior". In general, people are more focused on their immediate lives and, understandably, tend to put their families and households first on a day-to-day basis.

Third, the anthropomorphic strategy relies on being able to identify similarities with animals, such as intelligence. It has proven fairly easy to convince the public to identify with species such as bears, whales, and elephants. Consider the public's support for Roosevelt when he refused to kill a bear because he felt it would not conform to principles of fair chase and the ensuing craze over the Teddy bear. However, when we need to address conservation issues that concern less charismatic species, highlighting similarities could prove more difficult. It is notoriously difficult to rally public support for insects, yet they are extremely important for services such as pollination. On the flip side, how might the public treat a species when it is given negative human characteristics? We almost lost wolves in North America from that kind of anthropomorphism. On the other hand, anthropomorphism can create a false sense of connectedness with wildlife that can lead to conflict with humans, as in the case of a well-known grizzly bear in Alberta in 2017.

Going Forward

This entire discussion can seem like a luxurious philosophical exercise at a time when we are witnessing massive worldwide declines in species and biodiversity. However, there is a long-term relevance to deconstructing and evaluating the use of anthropomorphism in conservation. Someone could reasonably say that given the current global conservation crisis, if anthropomorphism will get people to care, then we should do anything we can to mobilize support. Perhaps.

The problem with anthropomorphism is that it distorts the larger landscape context in which wildlife exists and the social-political realities in which conservation operates. Misrepresentations of nature can make it difficult to filter and evaluate conservation options based on the realities of wildlife and their ecosystems. Consider the popular images of lions and elephants in Africa. The social, family-oriented nature of these species is often highlighted in film and television. These stories make it difficult for the public to objectively evaluate the merits of hunting as a tool to generate revenue for the conservation of these species and the social considerations in their management. We also commonly see the use of value-laden language such as "slaughter" or "murder" to describe hunting, portraying wildlife as something other than wild.

I started this post with a great deal of cynicism about anthropomorphism. I have a ways to go before I'm convinced that it can be an effective long-term conservation strategy. Researchers who have promoted its use have pointed out that it is not a "miracle cure" and have suggested that we instead work to create a kind of "enlightened anthropomorphism" whereby messaging is accompanied by arguments in support of natural biodiversity and processes. I'm just not sure if people will read that kind of fine print. But perhaps my friend was correct that anthropomorphism can create a sense of fascination with wildlife and convince people that they should care. If we achieve that first and most fundamental step, then we at least open the possibility to shape the public's ideas more positively and can work on creating long-term conservation behaviour.

Question: What does a certified trapper in the modern era do with a lifetime of skills and experience developed in dealing with wildlife? Answer: Help society deal with wildlife conflicts. The market for wild furs right now is not robust, but modern society as a whole needs the skill set of a certified trapper. In fact, without a healthy, economically viable fur market that uses the excess from renewable furbearer populations, society needs us more than ever. How well-equipped is the average homeowner in dealing with wildlife conflicts in a safe, respectful, humane manner?

Understand that more than 80% of the population now live in cities, and know very little about how to deal with wildlife in their backyard or homes. Meanwhile, today's urban design, with green spaces and our love for large trees, allows wildlife to flourish in the urban environment.

It is easy for city dwellers to be dismissive of a trapper's skill set until they have an uninvited guest take up residence in their home. A raccoon may move into their chimney, a squirrel starts chewing into their soffit, a mink raids their koi pond, or, heaven forbid, a black bear raids their garbage. These are success stories for today's wildlife populations, but with them comes the need for trappers.

"What's Your Plan Now?"

The call came in as a referral from my son’s boss – his girlfriend had a skunk under her deck. I immediately asked myself, “Has she already tried to catch it?" My gut feeling was that this was going to be a challenge. Most folks try to deal with problem wildlife first before calling for help, and dealing with a skunk becomes a whole other game when the walking time-bomb goes off.

The problem is that every hardware store, feed store and garden supply outlet sells live traps, giving you the impression that you can do it yourself (DIY). They do little to educate buyers on how to properly use them, what the laws are, or what to do with a live animal once it is in the trap. I call it the “What’s your plan now?" situation.

I receive a text asking for help, with a contact name and number. I know right away that this problem has escalated and the person needs my assistance. I call and arrange a site visit, and also ask some questions to screen the customer. How long has this been going on? Has she seen any animals in the backyard, and what has she done to try and catch them already?

Perfect Urban Habitat

I arrive early to the appointment to scope out the neighbourhood for potential problems. The house is well-kept in a nice residential area. I see a free-ranging cat in the yard and numerous dog tracks, along with mature trees and grey squirrels. It is mid-March with two feet of snow. The temperature is above freezing during the day but well below zero at night. I quickly surmise that this is a typical mature suburban neighborhood with numerous backyard sheds – perfect urban habitat for skunks and raccoons. 

I am a seasoned registered trapline trapper here to offer my skills in dealing with an urban wildlife problem. As I look around I wonder what role I am going to be able to play here. I can see as many pitfalls as I can solutions, with many that could end badly for my efforts. But then I remind myself that like a plumber or an electrician, I have a unique skill set that can help people, developed over 42 years' of experience in a world that is moving ever further away from hands-on contact with wildlife.

My knock on the door is answered by the lady of the house. I do my best to listen to her concerns, and sense she is frustrated and leery at the same time. I hand her my business card and tell her I can help. I ask to see the problem area and, more importantly, what has been done to discourage or capture the problem already. I am praying I get honest answers so I know what I am up against. I ask, “Have you been looking up solutions on the Internet?” “Yes,” she tells me, so my next question is, “Have you bought live traps already and tried to catch the skunk?” Again, "yes" is her answer. We are off to a good start.

Together we do a site inspection. A large wrap-around deck covers almost the full length of the back of the house – a nice new deck, well-built out of pressure-treated lumber. Upon closer inspection I see animal tracks coming and going from under the deck. Using my large, intense spotlight, I see a hole in the foundation where there was an addition to the house and all the tracks leading to this point of access. As we discuss the problem, I learn that the skunk has sprayed and the house sometimes has an odor. There's nothing like the smell of skunk quill to get a person’s attention.

Squirting in Breeding Season

Striped skunks breed from February to March. If the female is not in the mood yet, she will squirt a little quill to repel the courting male or males. Skunks are not true hibernators but are less active in the winter, mainly sleeping in their dens waiting for warmer days. Nocturnal by nature, they spend most of their day sleeping, venturing out mainly at night. This is one of the reasons they thrive in urban environments. Breeding season was the reason for the skunk smell in the house and the main reason I received the call for help. 

As I survey the site I count five trails that the skunk or skunks are using to access the den, plus a set of raccoon tracks. Striped skunks use old barns and utility sheds as den locations, and a favourite is under decks or porches. Sometimes they form communal sites with as many as 13 being recorded in one den. During the breeding season males travel up to 5 km looking for love.

Another animal I am often asked to deal with are groundhogs. I mention this because groundhogs are diggers by nature., and the holes and dens they make are often used by raccoons and skunks. I call them a gateway species; the groundhog builds the den that everyone else will use. It is important to deal with groundhogs for this reason.

After my assessment I offer my services to help. I know this will not be an easy job and that I am dealing with more than one animal that may have already been educated. I will have to dig into my years of experience to come up with a solution that will help the homeowner and respect the animals.

I will need roughly seven live traps of various designs to deal with the task. We have laws in Ontario that help respect the animals we live-trap: #1 we must check our live traps every 24 hours, and #2 we can only move live-caught animals 1 km from the capture site. As a personal rule, I try and check my live traps for skunks and raccoons at dawn since they are nocturnal and become stressed if not in their dens in daylight. I also am careful not to place traps in direct sunlight on hot days, again out of respect for the targeted animals.

Sardines Won't Cut It!

Because of the potential non-target animals roaming the neighborhood (dogs and cats), I use different types of baits and professional ADC (animal damage control) lures that are specific to skunks and raccoons. A can of sardines is not going to cut it! Also, since the animals could have already been exposed to a live trap and educated, I use double-door live traps, along with my poly-type live traps – specialized traps to do a safe, efficient job.

Skunks are known to carry rabies, a fatal disease for humans, and also are susceptible to distemper which can kill cats and dogs. Since I handle skunks on a regular basis, I already have my rabies vaccine as a preventive measure. Ontario is dealing with a rabies outbreak right now in the Hamilton area. Please make sure your pets are vaccinated against this deadly disease.

After a week of trapping I removed three skunks and one raccoon. The last skunk I caught was in a double-door wire-cage live trap and it did its utmost best to spray me. Thankfully, having the proper training, I was able to safely remove the trap and skunk without it spraying. It sure would have ruined everyone’s day had it released under the deck.

The skunks were gone and the house was back to normal. To prevent future problems, I recommended a dig guard be installed around the deck. A dig guard is what we call exclusion work and has to be properly installed to work.

Call a Certified Trapper

Thinking back on my training with the National Wildlife Control Operators Association, I realize how important it was that I invested time and money in additional training on dealing with the ever-expanding wildlife conflicts we face today. Knowing how to safely handle wildlife, provide inspections, and offer preventive solutions to wildlife conflicts allows me to help people.

You would not ask a lawyer to fix your plumbing, just as you would not ask a plumber to represent you in court. So it's important for folks to know whom to call when they have wildlife conflicts, and it's not your neighbor’s brother’s cousin who doesn’t have a clue to the potential problems and pitfalls. Remember what I said at the start: once you catch a skunk, what’s your plan?

My suggestion is to call a certified trapper with wildlife control training and the skill set to deal with wildlife conflicts in a safe, humane manner. The trapper should also have a business card and insurance, offer inspections, and, most importantly, provide preventive measures after the removal is complete.

A strong fur market, that utilizes healthy, well-managed furbearer populations helps keep animal populations in check with the environment. But if the fur trade were to stop tomorrow, don’t be fooled into thinking animals would not have to be managed. Regulated, science-based trapping as practiced today in North America is a positive for society.

Over the past months, several prominent designer brands have announced that their collections will henceforth be "fur free". Animal activists have been quick to claim this as signalling a fundamental shift in societal values, the emergence of new ethical marketing principles, and the imminent demise of the fur industry. On closer examination, however, the brands’ decisions look more like a big helping of cynical risk management, with a dash of marketing spin.

Let’s take a closer look.

Using Animals for Clothing

The most common reason cited by designers for dropping fur is concern about killing animals. Donatella Versace, for example, was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn’t feel right."

This can be a legitimate ethical decision, especially if you are a vegan and don’t eat meat or use any animal products. But most of us do eat meat and wear leather. And most “fur-free” designer brands – including Versace – continue to use leather ... and shearling, which is simply a fancy name for sheep fur.

One justification for this apparent hypocrisy is that leather and shearling can be seen as by-products: “the envelope that dinner came in.” If we are killing cows (or sheep) for meat, the argument goes, we might as well use the leather (or shearling) too.

Underlying this argument, of course, is the belief that eating meat is necessary – a notion that vegans and animal-rights groups like PETA do not accept.

But there are other problems with this justification for shunning most furs while embracing leather and shearling.

First, most designer brands continue to use leather that does not come from food animals, such as python and alligator.

Second, sheep are not the only furbearing animals that are eaten by people. Rabbits come quickly to mind. But beavers, muskrats and other wild furbearers are also used for food by First Nations communities and others across northern Canada. Raccoons and opossums are eaten by trappers and their families in the US. Animals not eaten by people are returned to the bush where they feed other wildlife. And while we don’t eat farmed mink, their carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilisers that restore the fertility of the soil – to grow soybeans for Ingrid Newkirk’s tofu stir-fry. Nothing is wasted.

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers: Muskrat stew and more.

Clearly, the argument that using leather and sheepskin (or shearling) is more ethical than using other furs does not stand close scrutiny.

Sustainability

Another argument for shunning fur was recently proposed by Gucci CEO, Marco Bizzarri; he claimed that being “fur-free” is a way to promote sustainability.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bizzarri, fur is more sustainably produced than most of the alternatives.

The wild-fur trade is highly regulated, nationally and internationally, to ensure that we use only a small part of abundant populations; never endangered species.

Some furbearers are so abundant that they would have to be controlled, even if we didn’t use fur. Over-populated beavers flood homes, roads, fields, and forest habitat. Coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves, and are now attacking pets and even people in many regions. Raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. And the list goes on.

But if we have to cull these animals, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

Fur farming is also highly sustainable, because farmed mink are fed left-overs from our own food production – the parts of fish, cows and pigs that we don’t eat. Farmed mink are champion recyclers, producing a natural clothing material, mink oil (for protecting leather) and other valuable products (including the best eye-lash fillers ever!) from food industry wastes that would otherwise clog landfills. As explained above, they also provide natural fertilisers to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. This is true sustainability.

By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetic materials that animal activists claim have rendered fur unnecessary, are generally made from petroleum – a non-renewable and highly polluting resource.

Perhaps Gucci should take another look at its sustainability policies?

SEE ALSO: Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur.

Warm, Beautiful, Long-Lasting and Biodegradable

When evaluating ethics and sustainability we must also consider how products are manufactured, used, and eventually disposed of. Fur scores remarkably well on all these criteria.

Fur pelts are “dressed” (preserved) using benign chemicals (e.g., alum salts, which you can put in your bath), because the fur and hair follicles must be protected. This is a much gentler process than leather tanning, where the goal is to burn away the fur hairs. And fur is often used in its natural colours, avoiding the dyes required for most textiles.

Fur garments and accessories are individually crafted by skilled artisans using heritage techniques; they are not mass-produced in sweatshops.

Fur is also a remarkably long-lasting material: a good-quality mink coat will often be worn for 30 years or longer. As styles (or your body mass) change, a well-made fur garment can be taken apart and completely restyled, or handed down to daughters and nieces to be worn vintage. Old fur coats are also recycled to make vests, accessories, or even pillows.

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing.

Finally, after many decades of use, your old fur can be buried in the garden where it will quickly biodegrade.

Fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics, by contrast, are not usually worn for many seasons (it’s not called “fast fashion” for nothing!), but – like other plastics – will persist in the environment without biodegrading.

Worse: troubling new research shows that these synthetics shed microfibers every time they are washed – tiny bits of plastic that leach into the waterways and are now being found in the intestinal tracts of oysters and other marine life. If we are concerned about animals and the environment, it is not at all clear that fakes are a wise choice.

The Truth About “Fur Free” Designers

So if it’s not really about ethics or sustainability, what should we make of these designers’ decision to drop fur? According to the Jing Daily, a leading digital publication on luxury consumer trends in China, a review of social media comments showed that many young Chinese luxury consumers believe the whole thing is a marketing ploy.

Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price

Some suggested that the decision reflects Gucci’s down-market strategy: “Gucci has never been known for its fur products, and I don’t think its targeted consumers can afford fur,” said a WeChat user named “Maggie.”

Others thought the “fur free” stance was simply a way to boost profits at the expense of consumers: “Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price,” a Weibo user named “Joey Zhenyi” wrote.

And some suggested that “the brand is just making a gesture,” and that a fur-free policy was a way for the company to “make it look sustainable”.

These young people are remarkably astute. After all, even Greenpeace, the leading environmental activist group, does not campaign against fur, because the modern, well-regulated fur trade is not considered to be an environmental problem.

But in a world where media-savvy animal-rights protest groups attract far more public attention than conservation scientists or biologists, dropping fur has become a quick and easy way to show corporate concern for ethics and sustainability, at virtually no cost.  In fact, these brands will certainly lower their security costs by not having to deal with activist protests.

It is no accident that the newly “fur free” designer labels have all acknowledged on-going “discussions” with Humane Society International or other animal-rights protest groups. These companies may or may not have been convinced about the virtues of the vegan agenda these activists promote, but they were undoubtedly convinced that they would face increasingly costly (and brand-damaging) protest campaigns if they didn’t drop fur. (Can you spell “protection racket?”)

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

So the real reasons why some designer brands have recently stepped away from (most) fur are probably a lot messier and less noble than they would like us to think.

Unfortunately, by encouraging more use of non-renewable, polluting, and non-biodegradable alternatives, these “fur free” brands are potentially doing more harm than good for animals and nature.

It's time for our May news roundup and we are going to start by talking footwear – vegan footwear to be exact. According to Footwear News, vegan footwear is on the rise due to demand from millennials, and improvements in material quality. No matter how much the quality of plastic shoes improves, they are still made from plastic, which is made from petroleum and never fully biodegrades. There are some organic alternatives making it to market, such as pineapple leather, but we still don't know whether the production processes used to create this material are safe and sustainable.

And sustainability is a very important topic these days, in particular within the fashion industry. Unfortunately designers like Stella McCartney, who consider themselves spokespeople for sustainability, still don't seem to understand the definition of the word. This is an interesting article on whether real or faux fur is better for the planet, this article highlights the problems with faux fur, and this one debates whether feathers are more or less ethical than fur (pictured).

We think feathers are less ethical, because fur is often used as winter clothing, whereas feathers are almost exclusively used as decoration on garments. (Down stuffing is the obvious exception.) If you are going to use animals for clothing, make sure it is for a good reason, right? That said, we'll take feathers as decoration any day over plastic beads.

Vegans Attack British Butcher

Things are getting heated on the animal rights front, especially for a family butcher who has come under attack from vegan animal rights activists in the UK. Activists claim to be compassionate, but we aren't sure how graffiti and death threats towards a small, independent butcher can be considered so.

This article calls out pipeline protesters who align themselves with Greenpeace, without considering the harm that the organisation has done to the Inuit through its anti-sealing campaigns.

A topic that is close to our hearts has made a lot of headlines recently: animal rights vs. animal welfare. The headlines that caught our eye were these: "How consumers confuse animal rights with animal welfare" and "Proposed pet crackdown confused animal welfare with animal rights". Meanwhile this piece explores the concept of conservation and how it has nothing to do with animal rights, and this one explains that consumers care about animal welfare, but they still want to eat meat and wear leather.

Coyotes are back in the headlines for attacking children and being the subject of poorly thought-through "management plans". On the blog, we looked at how the urbanisation of predators, and in particular coyotes (pictured), may change city dwellers' thoughts on trapping. And while we are talking about animals not being welcome, it's worth reading these pieces about nutria populations skyrocketing in California, and Canadian beavers destroying South America.

But let's forget about vegan footwear and criminal activists and end this week's roundup with some links we loved:

This author believes grass-fed beef is probably the most vegan food in the supermarket.

Demand for fur and leather in the US is forecast to reach $13 billion by 2022. Take that, activists!

Conservationist Finn, a yellow Labrador, is helping save penguins by sniffing out rabbits (pictured).

On our blog, From Donald Duck to Zootopia: 70 years of cartoon fur.

Lynx are more conversational than we thought.

Wearing fur is so prevalent in human culture that it has even reached our illustrations and animation, from comic books to cartoons. The cartoon fur-wearing character that is usually thought of first is Cruella De Vil from One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961). Although her fur coat and matching handbag emphasise her sense of high couture, she is far from the only one who wears furs in Toon Town!

A pioneer of cartoon fur was Disney’s Donald Duck, who wore a fur overcoat while singing "Jingle Bells" in Donald’s Snow Fight (1942). I guess he liked it so much that in Dumb Bell of the Yukon (1946) he decided Daisy should have her own. So obsessed did he become with this idea that he imagined a bear cub was Daisy in a fur coat and kissed it!

One that makes me giggle, especially this time of year, is the comic book Patsy Walker #105 from Marvel Comics. In "Her First Fur Coat!" (1963), Patsy is determined to wear her cartoon fur even though it's warm outside. “Every time I see a fur coat in a store window, it DOES something to me!" she says. "It just takes me out of this world!”

Another comic book fan of fur is Dr. Jean Grey who buys a white fur coat in the first series of X-Factor. She lost her old coat, so she goes shopping with Scott Summers, a.k.a. Cyclops. She tells the salesman that she wants to wear it right out of the store. When outside, she is enraptured by how soft and warm her cartoon fur coat is. She later gets in a snowball fight with Scott, still wearing her new fur coat, while calling herself "The Queen of the Icy North".

We already knew Wilma Flintstone liked fur because Betty Rubble mentioned to Barney, “when Wilma bought that fur coat”, in Hollyrock, Here I Come (1960). But of course the girls wanted more, so they set about trying to brainwash their husbands. “Every woman wants a mink coat. Your Wilma wants a mink coat," says Wilma to a sleeping Fred in Sleep On, Sweet Fred (1963). It almost worked too!

Some more recent fictional characters who are fashionable in cartoon fur can be seen in Frozen (2013). Notable are Elsa, Queen of Arendelle, in her fur-trimmed cape, and Kristoff the ice salesman in his leather-side-out fur-lined tunic.

Both How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and its sequel (2014) have casts replete in cartoon fur garments and trims. But I especially like how Astrid Hofferson wears her fur stole on top of her armour. It may not be practical, but it surely makes her attire more dramatic.

In computer animation, cartoon fur has evolved at an unbelievable rate. Just one of the smallest rodents  in Zootopia (2016) has more individual hairs than every character in all of Frozen combined, thanks to the software iGroom.

Fur, both physical and fictional, is here to stay.

And limited only by our imaginations.

Welcome to Fur Trade Tales, our series of real-life stories from real people of the fur trade. This is our second Trapline Tales, but look out for Fur Farm Tales, Furrier Tales, and more to come. If you'd like to contribute, please let us know at [email protected]

As a teenager growing up in the Selkirk Mountains of British Columbia, trapping with my father in the high country was exciting and fun. He taught me to respect the animals we trapped because they gave their lives for our livelihood. For him, it wasn't how many he caught, but how he caught them and in particular how humanely he could do so. He felt there had to be better methods of trapping and better tools than were on the market.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Ski doos and marten scent. By Calvin Kania.

While Dad pursued his dream of making a better mouse trap, I was more inclined to pursue the next marten or muskrat. I loved marten-trapping because we did it in the high alpine country. It was always a struggle to get there in January, with the steep inclines of the logging roads and the fresh powder snow, but it was worth it – pristine country, brisk, fresh, pure white and untouched, under a clear blue sky. We would find a big ole spruce or hemlock tree with the boughs drooping down to create shelter from the five feet of snow that lay around, then under the tree we'd build a fire and make a pot of tea.

But make no mistake, trapping in the high country is anything but easy. As you will hear in the tale I'm about to tell, it requires perseverance and stubborness.

One Sunday in the summer of 1974, when I was 15, my parents and I headed up Airy Creek, a pristine area we had not trapped for five years, for berry picking and a fish fry. Picking berries has always been one of Mum's favourite things, and along the way her eagle eyes were hard at work. "Stop the truck," she cried. "I see some huckleberries!"

Now a few years earlier, she'd wanted to pick wild strawberries and dragged me along to help because that's what kids were for in those days. Do you have any idea how small wild strawberries are? About the size of a small button on my golf shirt. So imagine how long it took to fill an ice cream pale. All day. So when Mum got excited about picking those huckleberries on her own, we stopped the truck right away. "Yep, no problem Mum! Way you go! See you later!"

Fish Fry

Dad and I then ventured on up the old logging road until we came to a spot where a bridge used to be. The timber company had not logged here since 1970, so they hadn't kept up with road and bridge maintenance. Most logging roads in British Columbia are "de-activated" if the logging company is not intending to log the area again for some time, and with the total loss of this bridge, you could definitely say it was de-activated. The creeks here are not that big to traverse, but big enough to keep our truck and snowmobiles out when there's no bridge. Anyway, Dad decided if we were going to trap into the head end of Airy Creek, we needed to find a way to cross it come winter time.

Since it snows very heavily in the Selkirk Mountains, it wouldn’t take much to make a bridge to hold a snowmobile. So we got busy cutting three good-size hemlock trees and fell them across the creek side by side. We then winched them up onto the road bed on both sides of the creek, and cabled them to some larger trees on the bank.

By this time it was getting late in the afternoon and Mum finally caught up to us with her bucket of freshly picked huckleberries. She looked around and asked where the fish were. "In the creek," says Dad. "Are they cleaned yet?" "No, they're still swimming around." "Boy," she says, "I send you two up here to catch some fish for supper and you're fooling around with logs. Don’t you get enough of that around the farm? If I have to do your work and mine, so be it." And off she went with her fly rod.

About an hour later she emerged with a few trout and saw no fire or tea pail boiling. Yep, we dropped everything in an instant and got on that fire and cleaned the fish!

Let me tell you, there is nothing better than a fish fry on an open fire on a beautiful summer afternoon. The fire is ready, the black cast-iron pan is hot, and half a pound of butter is thrown in to melt. The fish are gently laid in the pan, but before you know it, they curl up so fast. With fresh home-baked bread, tartar sauce, fresh cucumbers and tomatoes from the garden, those little trout tasted so good with our freshly boiled tea.

The day came to an end and we were all full of Mother Nature's bounty.

Bridge-Building

That fall, Dad and I drove up to check on our bridge, hauling along some 1x4 wood planks Dad had sawn up on his portable sawmill. The three timbers were still in place, and we laid the planks across them so they looked like a railroad track.

But those planks were still two feet apart from each other, so we spread some hemlock boughs across them. In this high country in winter, the snow falls gently in big flakes and accumulates very quickly. By the time we were ready to trap, there would be four feet of snow piled up on that makeshift bridge, and our snowmobiles would have no problem crossing.

We never trapped the high country until after Christmas. Snow in December came hard and fast, accumulating at two or three feet a week, and that made it almost impossible to break trail to check the line every few days. So we usually left it until mid-January when the snow eased up, started to settle, and gave us a good base to travel on.

Trapping Time

January was now here and it was time to trap some marten, lynx and wolverine up Airy Creek. I was so excited as we got our gear together – traps, bait, hatchets, nails, snowshoes, extra gas, and a sled to pull our supplies.

And for goodness sakes, we couldn’t forget our eau du toilet marten call scent (see recipe here). After all Mum had endured during our creation of this fine call scent, we'd darn well better not forget it! It was such a wonderful scent that it was stored in a quart jar with a lid and a very stiff 12-inch metal wire handle wrapped around the base of the lid for carrying. Even us trappers didn’t want to get any of it on our mitts or clothes!

With both snowmobiles mounted on the trailer – our vintage Bombardier and the newer Ski Doo Elan – and all the supplies loaded up, we started the truck and headed down the road. We reached our destination within half an hour because the logging company had kept the main road open. There we unloaded our equipment, fired up the snowmobiles and off we went, breaking trail over the old logging road.

It was pretty easy at this point as most of the road bed was level. Then we started to climb, and the machines slowed as we were now pushing snow, but we finally reached our bridge without having to break out the snow shoes.

"Wow! Look at that bridge!" I yelled. It was a thing of beauty. At least four feet of snow was piled up on it and it had a bow in it, but not to worry, Dad said. We got out the snow shoes and carefully walked across, packing the snow so it would be easy for the snowmobiles to cross.

Dad went first with the Bombardier. It was smaller and lighter than the Ski Doo so it could stay on top of the snow better and was easier to break trail with. He fired it up, gunned it, and was across in no time.

Now it was my turn, and I was pulling the sled. "Don’t go so fast," warned Dad. "If the sled slips off the bridge, you’ll be going with it into the creek." Oh gee thanks, wasn’t that something to look forward to! I was also scared of heights even at that early age. "Don’t look down," he said, "just straight ahead. When you get to this side you can gun it 'cause we have a steep hill ahead and we need as much traction as we can get before we bog down."

I let him get a couple hundred yards past the bridge before I started across. "Don't look down!" I kept telling myself, and lo and behold, I was across and feeling exhilarated. Now the work begins, I thought, because I knew those snow shoes were going to get a good workout breaking trail further up.

My machine was doing well because I was following in Dad's broken trail. He was already out of sight around the first bend because we were not to stop. We were gaining elevation fast and had to break as much trail as we could. Then I came around the next bend and there he was, stopped! What the !? We hadn’t gone a quarter of a mile. "What happened to the road?" I asked. "There isn't any," he replied. "It's down there at the bottom of the creek."

Mega Project

All of our summer work, gone in a flash. There it was, no road, for all to see. Over the years since the timber company last logged there, one spring the creek must have been high and washed 100 yards of road entirely away. All that was left was a barren hillside of sand and gravel with a drop of 300 feet to the creek below. "Now what?" I asked. "I guess we just start building a makeshift trail across the hillside along the bank," Dad said.

Well, if you think the bridge-building was a project, this was going to be a mega project. But first we had to build a trail under the trees that came off the hillside and piled up on this side of the road where it ended in mid-air. Of course it would have been a whole lot easier to have checked out this road last summer before we went to all the trouble of building a bridge.

It took us all day to build a trail across that embankment. It was a good thing we always carried a snow shovel, and Dad knew a few things about road-building having worked on the Alaska Highway during World War II.

We decided to break some more trail before daylight ran out, but we'd only gone another half mile when I'll be darned if we didn’t hit another washed-away road. We shook our heads in bewilderment. "We've come this far and done this much work," said Dad. "There's no turning back now. We’ll just come up tomorrow and work on this section."

Well, we eventually found our way to the head of Airy Creek, and that winter caught 35 marten, two lynx and three wolverine. There were remnants of old logging camps scattered about, some going back to the 1940s, and an old collapsed cookhouse and bunk house were great locations for our lynx sets. No more washed-out roads, and our bridge held up through the season.

We did it for income, of course, and it helped that Dad knew how to stretch a penny. But we also did it for the love of trapping, and for simply being out there. And we couldn't have done any of it without Dad's perseverance and stubborness, qualities which he passed on to me and which have helped me survive close to 50 years in the fur trade.

It's just a theory, but one explanation why Britain is the spiritual home of animal rights activism – and of opposition to fur – is that it exterminated all its large, dangerous animals long ago. North America, in contrast, still presents many opportunities to get mauled or even eaten, with one animal in particular, the coyote, now making its presence felt even in inner cities. Will this increasing exposure to a large scavenger-cum-predator shape the animal rights debate – and attitudes towards fur – in the years ahead?

Bears have been extinct in Britain for about 1,000 years, while wolves probably vanished by the late 18th century. The worst that might happen to you on a stroll in the countryside is to get bitten by an adder, the country's only poisonous snake, but bites are very rarely fatal. And the country is rabies-free. In the cities, if you're unlucky, a pigeon or seagull might poop on you.

So it's easy for the British to be somewhat glib about the dangers of wildlife. Yes, it's sad that tigers eat Indians, but they (the tigers) must be saved for future generations to admire!

In North America, of course, the story is different. Life in rural areas often means sharing space with wolves, bears, cougars, rattlesnakes and rabid raccoons. And life anywhere now can involve facing down a pack of pet-eating, human-biting coyotes. When it's your own kids' lives on the line – as any Indian living next to a tiger reserve will tell you – your view of wildlife may be very un-British!

Coyote Attacks

On April 29, 2018, on a suburban New York playground, a coyote launched an unprovoked attack against 5-year-old Natalia King-Petrellese and her 3-year-old brother. Luckily, police officers were able to kill the coyote, but what would have happened if they hadn't been around?

Coyote attacks on humans are still rare compared with attacks by domestic dogs, reported The Economist in 2013, and only two fatal attacks have ever been confirmed: 3-year-old Kelly Keen in 1981, in Glendale, California, and 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell in 2009, in Nova Scotia.

But aggressive altercations are increasing as so-called "urban coyotes" move in to city centres and lose their fear of humans. "Around 2,000 coyotes are reckoned to live in Chicago and its suburbs," said The Economist, "and it seems likely that the animal is thriving in many other built-up parts of the country. Once restricted to the south-western United States, it spread across the continent during the 20th century and more recently made its way into large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Boston and even New York."

Canada's not exempt either: In Montreal, half a dozen coyote bites on humans were reported last year.

Across North America, coyotes are now prime suspects when pet cats and dogs go missing, while in rural areas they are the number-one predator of calves and lambs.

So it's only a matter of time before the next fatal attack on a human. If it hadn't been for the presence of adults, it likely would have been Natalia King-Petrellese.

Urban Coyotes and Animal Rights

It seems inevitable that the steady spread of urban coyotes will influence views on animal rights in North America, especially among people living in cities.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

It's a sweeping generalisation, but let's say that our views on wildlife reflect where we live. People born and raised in Montana don't love nature in the same way people from Manhattan do. Rural folk tend to have a more utilitarian view of wildlife; they can wonder at its beauty at the same time as seeing it as a source of food and clothing, or simply as a pest. City-dwellers are more prone to Bambi syndrome, seeing wildlife as innocent, wide-eyed creatures, peacefully going about their daily existence. When you have little real contact with nature, you can imagine it's Disneyland.

So it's hardly surprising that there are differing views about coyotes. For rural folk, coyotes have little going for them. They lack all the glamour of wolves, eat livestock and pets, stink, taste foul, and carry rabies. About the only good thing going for coyotes is that – when their fur is prime – they make a great coat. For many rural folk, the only good coyote is a dead coyote.

Many city dwellers, though, tend to equate coyotes with domestic dogs, even to the point of putting food out for them (despite repeated warnings that this is an extremely bad idea).

These opposing points of view are both valid, but one thing we can all hopefully agree on is that, even if coyotes are not our favourite animal, they're still God's creatures and should be respected accordingly. That can mean many things, from trapping them humanely to trying to coexist with them.

But here's the thing: even the most ardent fan of coyotes will likely become a coyote-hater the minute one tears Fido to pieces or, heaven forbid, drags off their child.

Curiously (to this author at least), this change in attitude is not automatic for everyone. When Taylor Mitchell was mauled to death by coyotes while jogging through a riverside park, her mother issued a statement asking that the animals be spared. "We take a calculated risk when spending time in nature’s fold — it’s the wildlife's terrain," she wrote. "When the decision had been made to kill the pack of coyotes, I clearly heard Taylor’s voice say, 'Please don’t, this is their space.' She wouldn’t have wanted their demise, especially as a result of her own."

Still, I'm going to stick my neck out and say Taylor's mum's reaction was highly unusual. Most parents in her situation would have said, "To hell with coyote rights. Nuke 'em!"

Coyotes and Fur

Last November, Toronto-based Canada Goose, purveyor of coyote-trimmed parkas, took a bold step and opened a flagship store on Regent Street in central London. Presumably the decision to set up shop in the heartland of animal rights was based on the fact that many shoppers here are foreign tourists, because it can't have come as a surprise when local activists started protesting.

Time will tell how this venture works out, but Canada Goose won't be getting any PR help from indigenous wildlife. If some large predators show up in nearby Hyde Park to attack pet dogs, the conversation might change, but that won't happen because Britain has no large predators.

But in North America, of course, that's exactly what is happening. Urban coyote conflicts are now regular events, and that can be expected to change attitudes towards wildlife, but will it also change attitudes in other ways? Just as a new tuberculosis or whooping cough epidemic does wonders for vaccination campaigns, will the surge in coyote attacks on pets and people increase public appreciation for the benefits of regulated trapping – and the sustainable use of fur?

The danger, of course, is that if children are killed, there will be calls for coyotes to be exterminated. Public hysteria could even result in their total removal from the landscape, like British bears and wolves.

The optimal outcome is that urban coyotes open the eyes of city-dwellers to a side of wildlife that has nothing to do with Bambi. A new and more realistic understanding of wildlife will include the realisation that wild animals must sometimes be culled, and if that happens, it's only ethical to use them for food or fur.

City-dwellers will finally get why rural folk don't feed the bears but instead turn them into fine eating and a bearskin rug. Perhaps they'll also get that wearing a coyote-trimmed parka is not "like wearing your pet dog", as animal activists like to claim, but about protecting your pets – and your kids.

Fur has been making the headlines more often than usual, and we are very happy to see the media questioning the use of faux fur. While the media aren't exactly singing praise for real fur, we are starting to see a consistent message that faux fur may not be a viable substitute for the real thing, especially since they are finding plastic microfibre pollution in water, caused in part by our use of synthetic fabrics. Of course us fur folk know this and it's part of our campaigning, but the fact that the media are regularly mentioning this is certainly positive for the trade.

Check out articles by Drapers, ABC, and Refinery 29. Not all of these articles are pro fur, but at least people are beginning to understand the damage caused by fake fur. Unfortunately this piece by Forbes failed to call out the companies who are dropping real fur in the name of sustainability, when we all know that real fur is so much more sustainable than the alternative.

The team at Truth About Fur also did a piece about how a fur could be the most sustainable material in your closet, and if you want some clarification on how microfibres (from materials such as faux fur) pollute our oceans, then this video does a great job explaining it. Since we are on the topic of microfibre pollution, it’s worth checking out this BBC video about plastic pollution (pictured), or this podcast from CBC’s The Current where they discuss the issue in depth.

Now that you are convinced that real fur is far superior to faux fur, are you considering buying one? Our guide to choosing the right fur for you will give you a hand with your shopping. But be careful – there have been some isolated cases of real fur being labeled as fake. The fur industry’s stance on this matter is in agreement with animal rights activists (that’s a first): labelling needs to be accurate. Everyone has the right to know what they are buying. If you do end up getting yourself a beautiful new fur coat, here are some great tips on caring for it.

Animal Activists Bothering Everyone

While they are still very much bent on ending the fur trade, animal rights activists have also been busy on other projects, and any fashion brand that thinks dropping fur will get them off its back should think again. For example, they want to stop the use of skins like crocodile and snake, leather, wool, and silk. (Prince Charles will certainly have an issue with that, since he's recently been promoting the benefits of wool.) Now PETA has luxury conglomerate LVMH in its cross hairs, pressuring it to stop using exotic skins.

Aside from fashion companies, the targets for bothersome activists seem to be endless. They're against dog-sledding, of course, and this article about PETA's campaign against the Iditarod is an interesting (and frustrating) read. They're trying to convince us to eat vegan ice cream, covering themselves in manure, and trying to get monkeys intellectual property rights. They're also feeling terribly sorry for themselves, so much so that they've given a name to the anxiety linked to being vegan – Vystopia.

Extortion in Toronto

It’s normal to be frustrated with activists trying to restrict our freedom of choice and force us into faux fur, but there is one story in particular that has really bothered us. You may have heard of the Toronto restaurant that reacted to vegan protesters by butchering and eating a deer leg in the restaurant’s front window. When the story hit the headlines across North America, we thought the activists would move on to the next unsuspecting small business. But instead, they told the restaurant owner that they would only be willing to cease protesting if he put a vegan slogan in the front window. The restaurant owner refused and referred to the threat as extortion – which we agree with. On the upside, the restaurant continues to get tons of free press as this saga continues.

A few other articles that caught our eye last month were this piece about the seal hunt, and some great trapper profiles, from Kansas and Labrador. We also found this very good read on how the declining numbers of hunters is threatening conservation (pictured). We certainly agree that it is time to start changing the way we talk about hunting, and trapping too.

Let’s end this month’s roundup with an update on what the animals have been up to:

The news is not good for caribou, as their numbers are declining.

Oregon is considering what to do with its growing sea lion population, which is having an impact on fish populations.

Belugas can communicate, and it's a lot more sophisticated than we thought.

Next time you check into a motel, make sure the occupant next door isn’t an alligator.

No one intelligent will be surprised to learn that this deer vasectomy program is a waste of money.

This coyote's tuition fees are really quite high.

Beware of moody geese who have just been through a breakup.

Cows and chicken duke it out to determine which should (and shouldn't) be eaten.

Choosing the best fur for you is like choosing a car. Most of us can't afford a different car for every activity or need, so we pick the important ones – say, school runs and camping  – and buy accordingly. Furs are the same. Unless we can afford a different fur for every occasion, we need to choose carefully with our personal lifestyles in mind.

The first question is easy: what will be your fur's primary function? As cars are to get from A to B, so furs are for keeping us warm.

But again as with cars, furs usually have to be multi-functional. Yes, we want to keep warm as we go about our daily activities, but we probably also want to look great on a night out. So the second question is often, how do we balance beauty with functionality?

Before you start picking out styles and fur types, ask yourself how you'll be wearing your fur. Will you be mushing dogs across Alaska (in which case comfort and warmth trump sophisticated styling), or will you be sipping martinis on the patio in California?

Apart from warmth and beauty, some other considerations include:

• Durability. Mushing dogs takes its toll on any clothing, sipping martinis not so much.
• Cost. Furs can run from a few hundred dollars to the price of a small house. But the best fur for you may not be the most expensive.
• Fur type. All furs are not equal – mink and chinchilla are as different as chalk and cheese. And remember that furriers usually stock the most popular types. If you've got your heart set on skunk or New Zealand possum, be ready to shop around.
• Your gender. Most fur types are unisex, although men's garments tend to be less ostentatious than those for women. Still, otter, fisher, coyote and other rugged furs are often appreciated by the guys, while more delicate furs like chinchilla are usually for the ladies (or Floyd Mayweather and various rappers).

So let's run through some scenarios and help decide the best fur for you.

Priority: Keeping Warm

Most furs have two types of hair – long, shiny guard hairs and short, fine underfur. The guard hairs are what we usually see, and they protect the animal from branches and other obstacles, while the dense, soft underfur does most of the insulating. So furs with delicate guard hairs, like fox, or none at all, like chinchilla, can be lightweight and warm but are fragile, requiring lots of tender loving care.

The most popular furs – including mink, beaver, marten (Canadian sable), coyote, and others – combine beautiful, protective guard hair with the warmth of soft, dense underfur.

Many furs (mink, beaver and others) are now "plucked", meaning that the guard hairs have been removed, and/or "sheared" down to the height of the underfur or shorter. This reduces the weight of the garment, and provides a sleeker silhouette while maintaining much of the warmth.

A shearling coat is made from sheepskin, with the wool sheared down to reduce bulkiness. (Think Uggs.) Shearling is often worn "reversed", with the fur side in, against the body, increasing warmth. This is how most furs were once worn when warmth was the primary concern. In fact, our word "fur" comes from the Old French "fourrer", literally meaning "stuffed".

Some furs (cow, calf and seal) are called "flat" furs because they have no underfur, only guard hairs. While beautiful, these furs are not much warmer than a good leather coat.

Caribou, worn by traditional hunters in the Arctic regions, is remarkably warm because it has hollow guard hairs, but that's not something you're likely to find at your local fur store or fashion boutique. In any case, it makes you look like, well, a caribou.

In summary, if keeping warm is absolutely paramount in your decision-making, check out what the pros use: mushers, polar explorers, and ice fishermen. But if you want to stay cozy while looking great in normal winter conditions, most popular furs will do the job.

Scenario #1: Ice-fishing in Nunavut. You’re dressing to stay alive, so a knee-length caribou parka with sealskin boots are perfect. If you can't find a caribou parka, try one with a rugged fabric shell filled with goose down, and fur trim on the cuffs, hem and hood to keep the wind at bay. Wolverine is considered by Arctic Inuit to be the most effective hood ruff, but wolf, coyote or fox also work well. Research suggests that the uneven length of natural fur hairs disrupts air currents that can rob heat from around the face. Whatever the reason, a fur-trimmed hood is a "must" in cold temperatures; it really works.

#2: Après ski. You want to be warm and look spectacular, while doing nothing more strenuous than raising your glass. For the ladies, didn't Audrey Hepburn look great in Charade in sheared mink with a matching pillbox hat and giant sunglasses? Mink has very dense underfur, so even with the guard hairs sheared, you'll still be toasty. For really chilly evenings, consider a fox or, better still, a chinchilla jacket. Despite being ultra-lightweight and super soft, chinchilla has extraordinarily dense underfur. Pair yourself with a ruggedly handsome man in coyote or long-hair (unsheared) beaver for the full experience!

Priority: Keeping Dry

Keeping dry is part of keeping warm, because being wet greatly increases the wind chill effect. Underfur that is unprotected by sturdy guard hairs absorbs water, so if you're expecting damp weather, avoid chinchilla and rabbit, as well as furs that have been sheared or plucked. If you expect your apparel to be exposed to rain very often, you have three smart choices: flat fur, a "reversed" fur or fur lining, or fur with plentiful, long guard hairs.

Flat furs are the most water-resistant of all furs because they are nothing but guard hairs. The most durable of these is sealskin. Sometimes called “nature’s raincoat”, sealskin is so waterproof it has been used to make kayaks! But remember that because flat furs have no underfur, they are not that warm. Also, because the leather is quite thick, they are not light-weight, and are not suited to figure-hugging garments. (Note: Sealskin cannot be sold or imported into the US. This law was implemented in 1972, before modern regulations were in place to ensure sustainable hunting practices; it has unfortunately not yet been amended.)

Another way to keep warm and dry is to wear a reversed fur, or a jacket made with a water-resistant material and a fur lining. The most common reversed fur is shearling. Once bulky (think WWI aviator jackets), they are now made in a wide range of beautiful and sophisticated styles. Fur-lined raincoats or jackets can be worn year-round if you opt for a removable lining.

While full fur coats are not ideal for heavy rain, most good-quality beaver, muskrat, marten and other furs have long guard hairs whose natural oiliness repels water to a certain extent. If your furs get wet, never dry them near radiators or intense heat. Just shake off excess water and hang your garment to dry slowly with good ventilation. If your fur gets really soaked, it's usually best to consult a professional furrier.

Priority: Durability

In this age of fast, disposable fashion, it's gratifying that most furs can last for decades, especially with professional cleaning and storage. But some are more durable than others. The least durable are furs without strong guard hairs, such as rabbit and chinchilla, which may shed if rubbed a lot (think shoulder bag straps). The most durable are otter, beaver, and mink, with raccoon, coyote, and marten not far behind.

Natural furs tend to last longer than those that have been sheared, plucked, or dyed.

So, you want a jacket that can survive 20 years of real-life use before being passed on to your son or daughter? Mink is hard to beat, but you can also try long-hair or sheared beaver, marten, coyote, raccoon, or fisher.

Priority: Appearance

Are you an attention grabber, or do you prefer to be discreet?

If you’ve just won Best Actress and want the world to know, a long-haired fur is for you. Associated with flash and glamour, nothing gives the movie star / rapper look like a fox coat, with its long, shiny guard hairs and spectacular natural colours. For men, long-hair beaver, fisher and coyote are bulkier and coarser, and often used for parka trim, but in a full-length coat give instant Mountain Man credibility.

For more sophisticated elegance, nothing beats mink. But sheared furs – or a fur-lined jacket or parka – also give you the luxury and warmth of fur without making a big deal about it.

For those who want something new, technological advances mean designers now have more room for creative expression than ever before. The classic mink coat has been reinvented for a more modern look, but all furs can now be transformed with shearing, leathering, knitting, intarsia, dyeing and many other techniques. Sheared mink can be made so light and supple, just dye it green and people will wonder what exotic new fabric you're wearing! Knitted fur is also very light, and as flexible as a woollen sweater.

Priority: Cost

Few fur fans can afford a $100,000 full-length chinchilla coat like Floyd Mayweather, but don't be discouraged. Entry-level fur garments have two fewer zeroes, and accessories are half that again.

The main factors determining cost are the type of fur, the quality of the pelts, the size of the garment, and the processing and manufacturing techniques required to make it. The price of the same fur type can vary widely, depending on the quality of the pelts used and the workmanship involved. Top-quality mink, sable, marten (Canadian sable), fisher, bobcat, lynx, and chinchilla are some higher-priced furs.

Popular furs in the middle price range (say, $5,000 to $10,000 for a full-length coat) include good-quality mink, fox and beaver. Muskrat, possum, raccoon, and good-quality shearling may cost half that. Cheapest of all are rabbit (sometimes known as the "great imitator" because it can be made to look like just about anything else) and lower-end sheepskin, a durable product that's only cheap because the pelts are so readily available.

As for size, obviously a full-length coat costs more than a jacket, which costs more than a vest, and so on down. Many fur fans start out with fur-trimmed hoods, collars, scarves or mittens, which are not only affordable but also flexible in how they are worn. A fur vest, for example, can be worn under a jacket in winter, or on its own in spring.

Another cost factor to consider is cleaning. Darker furs hide dirt better, while long guard hairs are good at repelling dirt that might otherwise get stuck in the underfur.

Bottom line: take your time when choosing the best fur for you. Visit several boutiques and, ideally, a specialized retail furrier. Fur-working techniques and styling have changed so much over recent years that you will be surprised by the wide range of choices available. The research is a pleasure in itself. The good news is that, thanks to the creativity of a new generation of young designers, there's never been a better time to choose the best fur for your taste and lifestyle!

It’s no secret that the planet is in trouble. We're depleting our non-renewable resources and leaving behind a trail of toxic garbage and pollution. The good news is that many people are now striving for lifestyles that are more sustainable, but the choices we face can be tricky. One choice we all make every day is what to wear. So what is sustainable fashion, and how does fur measure up?

To measure fur's sustainability, we're going to ask five important questions.

Question 1: Where does the raw material come from?

This is the most important question by far when determining whether your clothing is sustainable or not.

Raw materials fall into two classes: organic (plants and animals) and inorganic (coal, oil, ore, etc.). Organic materials are sustainable because they are renewable; the plants and animals from which they come replenish themselves. Common examples used in clothing are cotton, linen, bamboo, wool, fur, down and leather. Inorganic materials are unsustainable because they are non-renewable; once they're gone, they're gone, unless we can find some more. The most important inorganic materials used in clothing are synthesised from petroleum, such as acrylics and polyesters.

How does fur measure up?

Fur comes from animals, and since animal populations replenish themselves, that makes the raw material for the fur trade sustainable in theory. In practice, fur can lose this sustainability credential if the animals are removed faster than their population can replenish itself. While this certainly happened in the past with some species in some regions, the good news is that the lessons of history have been learned.

The trapping of wild furbearers today is strictly regulated to ensure harvests are sustainable from year to year. Regulations cover what animals can be taken, when, where, and how. These regulations ensure that we are using only part of the annual production. Trade in endangered species is strictly prohibited.

Meanwhile, fur farming, like all livestock farming, is inherently sustainable, because farmers can produce fewer or more animals depending on market conditions. Indirectly, farming also benefits wild populations as it reduces pressure on them in times of high demand. Fur farms also minimise their environmental impact in other ways, e.g., feeding their animals left-overs from human food production; using manure and soiled straw bedding to fertilise crops; and turning carcasses into biofuel.

The result: Both wild and farmed furs are sourced sustainably.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

Question 2: How is the material produced or processed?

The different ways in which materials are produced and processed mean they have different environmental impacts. It's well known that the production of petroleum-based synthetics brings risks, from oil spills during extraction to toxic chemicals emitted during production of the fabric. But every fabric has issues, including organic fabrics. Traditional methods for growing cotton, for example, use a lot of water, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, and remove wildlife habitat. In the case of farmed animals, there is waste disposal to consider.

How far the raw materials and finished garments travel is another consideration. A garment entirely produced and sold locally has a smaller carbon footprint than, for example, a polyester garment made from oil drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, processed into fabric in China, assembled in Vietnam, and then sold in Europe.

How does fur measure up?

The main materials used in the "dressing" of fur pelts are either organic or naturally occurring compounds, and environmental protection controls ensure that there are no harmful effluents. (This is certainly true today for all developed economies, but developing countries are now also introducing better controls.) Claims made by animal rights groups that fur dressing is very harmful to the environment have often confused fur dressing with leather processing. In reality, fur dressing is a much milder process because the hairs must be protected rather than burned off as they are in leather production.

It is also worth noting that, unlike other clothing materials, furs are often used in their natural colours, which means no bleaching and dyeing. Very few materials in the apparel sector are used in their natural state, which makes fur a true exception. In fact, the most valuable furs are the ones whose natural colours and patterns are the most striking, with no need for dyes or bleaches.

One downside to the fur production process -- like much other apparel production today -- is caused by globalisation. While most fur garments consumed today in North America and Europe are made with locally-sourced pelts, much of the actual manufacturing is done in Asia. This reduces labour costs -- and provides lower prices for consumers -- but implies more fuel use.

The result: The processing of fur is not harmful to nature; it is done with benign chemicals, and fur is often used in natural colours, reducing the need for bleaches and dyes. However, while the fur pelts are usually produced in North America or Europe, fur (like other apparel) is now often manufactured in Asia, which requires transportation and fuel consumption.

Question 3: Does the garment cause harm during its lifetime?

A few years ago this would have seemed a strange question, but a growing body of research now shows that petroleum-based synthetics harm the environment just by being worn. Every time we wash and dry these synthetics, micro-particles of plastic are released into the air and water, and these are now turning up everywhere – in the oceans, in animals, and even in our drinking water.

Organic fibres also release microparticles, but the difference is that they biodegrade, rather than accumulating like plastic microparticles.

How does fur measure up?

Scientists are focusing their efforts on plastic microparticles, but it's reasonable to assume that microparticles given off by fur garments, being biodegradable, are harmless. And since furs are not washed and dried regularly like most other garments, the number of microparticles floating around is probably much smaller than, say, cotton microparticles. In short, while microparticle pollution is a huge concern for petroleum-based synthetics, it's a non-issue for fur.

The result: Fur causes no environmental harm during its life cycle.

Question 4: How long will the garment last?

The 3 R’s of waste management are reduce, reuse, and recycle, and they are all aimed at reducing our overall consumption. In the case of clothing, we need to eschew throwaway fashion that lasts just a few seasons, and opt instead for quality garments made of durable materials.  

How does fur measure up?

Of all organic materials used for clothing, fur and leather (fur with the hair removed) are the most durable. It's not by chance that leather is used for shoe soles! And because fur coats are generally quite expensive, consumers have an incentive to care for them. Fur is one of the few clothing materials that is worn for decades and even passed down through generations.

When properly cared for, a fur coat can last 40 years or more, and even then it may not be at the end of its life. Provided the leather is still supple, grandma's vintage mink coat can be recycled as a trendy new bolero, or "let out" to make a two-metre scarf.

The result: Fur apparel is extremely long-lasting, which is an important sustainability objective because it reduces the need to constantly produce new products.

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing.

Question 5: What happens to the garment when it's discarded?

Waste disposal is one of the most pressing environmental issues today, both of consumer goods and the packaging they come in. Most clothing eventually ends up in landfills, but how much damage it causes there depends on the materials used. Organic fabrics, such as cotton, wool, and fur, biodegrade. The problem with petroleum-based synthetics is that they don't biodegrade but eventually break down into microparticles of plastic that then enter the waterways. (It's been estimated that clothing and other textiles are responsible for 34.8% of such microparticles in the oceans today.)

How does fur measure up?

Being organic, fur fully biodegrades when put in a landfill. Animal rights groups claim the chemicals used in dressing prevent fur from biodegrading, but this is nonsense, and Truth About Fur has proven it. Any silk lining, cotton thread or leather straps will also biodegrade, while metal zippers will rust and return to the soil in mineral form. At worst, a few plastic buttons will remain. So in the sustainability stakes, fur wins hands down, especially when compared with petroleum-based synthetics which don't biodegrade, but just break down into microparticles that one day may turn up in your beer!

The result: Fur is completely biodegradable.

SEE ALSO: The great fur burial: How fur biodegrades after one year.

The verdict

Wait a minute, you may be saying; if fur scores so well on these sustainability measures, why have several high-profile brands recently announced that they will stop working with fur, saying that fake fur is more sustainable? Simply put, the claims these companies are making are nonsense. Anyone who believes fake fur made from petroleum is more sustainable than real fur has no understanding of the meaning of sustainability. Unfortunately, these companies are simply regurgitating, without checking the facts, propaganda fed to them by animal rights groups bent on ending all use of animals.

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused?

So how does real fur score overall as sustainable fashion? Fur is one of the most sustainable fabrics on the planet, ticking all the boxes: it's made from sustainably-produced natural materials, it uses fairly benign production processes, and the result is long-lasting and recyclable garments that eventually fully biodegrade after providing many decades of warmth and comfort.

OK, we hear what you're thinking: Truth About Fur is all about advocating fur, so it's no surprise that we're giving it two thumbs up. But now ask yourself the same questions, substituting any other material for fur, and see what you get. What's the production process behind your petroleum-derived synthetic raincoat? Will your fake fur jacket look good after five years of wear and tear? And does it not concern you that these garments, at the end of their life cycle, will be condemned to a landfill to crumble into microparticles that pollute our oceans? Let us know in the comments below!

Want to know more? Then you may want to read Fur is a sustainable natural resource. And watch ...

There's a lot of fur fashion updates to cover this month, but let's start with a topic that we've been seeing in the media way too often: coyote attacks. We are getting stories from all over the US about coyote populations getting out of control. There's a dog who has lost part of his leg, stories of missing cats, and other pet injuries all thanks to coyote attacks. Yet many local governments haven't hired trappers to deal with the problem, and we want to know why!

It is beginning to appear as though the life of a pet dog or cat is worth less than that of a coyote. Or are people scrambling to find a non-lethal way to control the populations? Whatever the case, coyotes attacks are on the rise and people don't seem to be realizing that trappers are the solution. (Trappers will also be the solution for this wild hog infestation in Georgia.)

While we are on the topic of trapping, Yukon trappers are set to have a good year (below) as very cold weather gives rise to hopes of prime pelts.

Vegans Unlucky in Love

Meanwhile vegans are having less of a good time, especially in love. Twenty-eight percent of singles said they wouldn't go out with a vegan. It doesn't come as a huge surprise to us, as you might end up with an animal rights activist, who will want to spend their weekends protesting outside IKEA or who will compare pig farming to the holocaust. These people simply aren't right in the head. And we particularly loathe this one, who says we shouldn't call vegans extremists while glossing over the fact that there are activists dishing out death threats to us omnivores.

And of course animal rights activists are behind the ridiculous decision by San Francisco's city council to "ban" fur. Let's keep "ban" in quotation marks, because local wild furs and used furs and shearling will still be sold, but it is a ridiculous decision nonetheless, and this article does a good job of highlighting both sides of this case.

SEE ALSO: Sheep fur: Pam Anderson hates it, Ralph Lauren loves it

Hypocrite Versace "Doesn't Feel Right"

Moving on to fashion, we've got good news and bad news. Starting with the bad, another hypocritical fashion company has decided to stop using fur. This time it is Versace, and according to Donatella Versace (their creative director), "It doesn't feel right" to kill animals for fashion. But strangely enough ... she will continue to sell leather, exotic skins, shearling, and silk. Do you smell a hypocrite?

SEE ALSO: Hypocrite profile: Stella McCartney

Some fashion companies' hypocritical decisions to stop using furry animals, but not leather-y animals is unlikely to have a big impact on the industry, as the customer continues to want to wear fur. They want colourful furs, like those of Charlotte Simone (pictured above), they want to wear fur at the racecourses, and they want fur-trimmed parkas. The Chinese have an especially big appetite for fur, in fact it's the biggest fur market in the world. Speaking of fur parkas, Yves Salomon, a famous furrier and maker of trendy fur parkas, had some great things to say about fur in this Forbes article.

Another big news story from March was that of plastics - in our oceans, in our drinking water, and in our food. Apparently microplastics are in bottled water, plastic fibers are filling our oceans, and larger pieces of plastic are forming islands in the oceans. It's a terrifying situation, and one culprit is all the synthetic clothing we're consuming. How about just sticking to the natural stuff?

SEE ALSO: Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur

Let's end the roundup with some notable links from last month.

This article about a family who adopted a pig from a shelter and then decided to eat it resulted in a vibrant discussion on Facebook. Our verdict? We have no problem with people eating pigs, even their own pigs, but we don't think it was very fair that the shelter spent time and resources nursing the pig back to health, only for it to be eaten.

It's not your typical costume department: here's what it's like working on the wardrobe team for the TV show Frontier (pictured above).

This Toronto chef has found an innovative way to deal with protesters in front of his restaurant: he decided to butcher and eat a deer leg in front of them. The best part? It has resulted in media coverage all over Canada and even in the US. Thanks to the animal rights activists, this restaurant is getting a ton of free press.